More “Zoning Code Clean-Up” revisions, input sought on potential new policies, the final Truckee River Vision Plan & much more
By Alicia Barber
We’re in a bit of a pre-Labor Day lull, it seems, because the only city meeting this coming week is that of Reno City Council, which meets on Wednesday, August 28. You can find the online meeting agenda with links to all supporting materials here.
I’m going to highlight a bunch of development-related items on that agenda, and first up is perhaps the most complex item (D.3), which relates to the ongoing “Zoning Code Clean-Up.” Under this item, City staff will present a wide array of proposed revisions that appear to be the last collection categorized as “clean-up,” plus seek input on some policy initiatives that Council could direct staff to address separately. Those include important topics like tattoo parlors, a potential downtown noise ordinance, tree protections, permitting for schools and certain industrial uses, neighborhood protections, and more—so be sure to keep reading.
It’s challenging but critical for residents to keep up with proposed zoning and ordinance changes. They can be difficult to understand, particularly in terms of their potential repercussions, but changes to Title 18 (the Land Development code) can have a major impact on our everyday lives by determining what can be built where, what regulations will govern the appearance and function of any new additions to the landscape, and how much (if any) public review they will require. So let’s dive in.
Item D.3 – Title 18 “Zoning Code Clean-Up”
This “Zoning Code Clean-Up” initiative, as you may recall, has been split up into multiple different phases and components, including the Affordable Housing initiatives that were already adopted, the proposed ADU ordinance that has yet to be drafted, and more.
It’s important to note that none of these proposed code revisions will be adopted at the August 28 meeting. Rather, City staff is simply introducing these proposed revisions and how they might be worded, based on input from past meetings, the Planning Commission, and various stakeholders. They are requesting feedback from Council (and the public) in advance of drafting the final revisions, which would then come back to the Planning Commission and then City Council in the form of a text amendment and ordinance. That step is several months away.
Three documents included with this item explain and illustrate all of the proposed revisions, and the reasons they are being proposed:
- Staff Report – This 8-page document explains where we are in this process of Zoning Code Clean-Up and includes explanations of the six specific policy areas where staff seeks further input.
- Summary Chart (Exhibit A) – This 11-page document lays out the revisions being proposed for the entirety of Title 18, with the staff’s explanation of them and an indication of what motivations or feedback spurred each one.
- Redline document (Exhibit B) – This 583-page document is the complete Title 18 (Land Annexation and Development), with all proposed revisions marked in red.
I highly recommend reading through the first two documents in their entirety. It can be difficult to find precisely where these proposed revisions would appear in the actual code (page numbers would have helped!) but it’s there for reference if you want to try to better understand the context in which they would appear (you can also consult and search the current Title 18 online here.)
When you look at the Summary Chart, you can see that a great many of these revisions are indeed accurately described as “clean-up”—making terminology consistent, reducing confusion, updating certain aspects to align with current code, eliminating redundancies, etc.
However, I am struck by the fact that some of the proposed revisions categorized as “clean up” actually comprise changes to the code that would impact regulations like how much public review a new project would undergo, what kinds of setbacks are required for certain types of development, and even what kinds of uses are allowed in different zoning districts.
These may or may not be of concern to you (or to me), but my point is that they are mixed in with clean-up items, and their implications are not necessarily clear.
As the Summary Chart indicates, some of these proposed revisions are said to be “based on community and technical experts feedback.” Chief among those “technical experts” is the “Technical Advisory Committee” (TAC) described in the Staff Report as “a group of 29 individuals….who use the City of Reno Title 18 Annexation and Land Development Code on a regular basis” and are said to include “land use planners, architects, engineers, landscape architects, designers, and City staff.”
Consulting experts and regular users of the code is great. But I think it’s important to point out that what some in the building community might see as obstacles to development, residents might view as important protections. And it’s tough for residents just looking at the technical code to understand the potential repercussions of a specific change.
Again, as we’ve seen before, it could have been a good idea here to separate out the “clean-up” from the “new changes.” If staff won’t do that, the best we can do is read through the 11-page chart and flag any revisions that raise questions for us—and then ask staff to explain what they mean, providing examples, if possible. What we’re trying to understand—and this is just being responsible—is the worst-case scenario of what could occur should these changes be made.
For instance, there are a number of instances where the requirement to secure a Conditional Use Permit (which requires review by the Planning Commission) has been changed to a Minor Conditional Use Permit (with review conducted administratively by City staff). That’s an advantage to a developer or builder, for sure, but would residents be more comfortable with public review of such projects—and even more importantly, would it result in a better project?
Here are some of the proposed revisions that drew my attention. You may find others. Again, I’m not saying any or all of these are undesirable, just that I don’t immediately understand what they mean or would do—and you might have the same reaction to these or others (and you may even want to support them), so let’s make sure to get all our questions answered.
Examples listed under 18.02 Zoning Districts
- Buildings exceeding 500,000 sf in the Industrial Commercial zoning district currently require approval of a conditional use permit and are required to have multiple tenants. This standard was modified to now require a minor site plan review, instead of a conditional use permit, and are no longer required to be designed for multiple tenants.
- Table 2-37: Sign Regulations for Gaming Overlay District identifies specific sign regulations for the Gaming Overlay District. There are broader portions of the City that are within the Gaming Overlay District and do not include a gaming establishment. Language was added to specify that the additional sign regulations only apply to the actual gaming establishment and not to other types of uses.
Examples listed under 18.03 Use Regulations
- Tattoo Parlors have been removed and condensed into general personal service.
- Bars have been modified to go from a conditional use permit to permitted by-right in the General Commercial zoning district.
- The use “Outdoor Amusement or Recreation” has been expanded to be allowed in additional zoning districts.
- Use standards specific to Assisted Living Facilities has been modified to be less restrictive.
- For both primary and secondary schools, a Conditional Use Permit will be triggered for a school in excess of 400 students. This is based on council feedback for a desire to have more public feedback for larger schools.
- Use standards for Live Entertainment have been added to provide clarity on how measurements to and from sensitive uses is determined.
Examples listed under 18.04 Development Standards
- Article 1 – Additional requirements and specificity for Feral Horse management was included to address ongoing issues, including adding a boundary that is consistent with the Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW).
- Article 3 – Added flexibility regarding re-vegetation after grading
- Article 5 – Allowing added flexibility with regards to undergrounding power lines for public roadway improvements
- Article 9 – Additional flexibility with regards to front yard setbacks for infill lots was included
- Article 9 – To increase compatibility between residential uses and adjacent buildings with regards to height, “Stepback” requirements were clarified, as they are difficult to administer.
- Article 10 – Removed standards specific to parking structures in an attempt to make parking structures easier to develop
- Article 10 – Removed requirements for parking structures in an attempt not to over-regulate and make parking structures more expensive, as they are desired over large open lots. Structures must still follow building articulation, and pedestrian amenity requirements in certain districts.
- Article 16 – Updated skyway standards to reflect modern application practices.
There is also some terminology that I see would change, including changing the definition of “Multi-Family Dwelling” from “a building used or designed at two or more dwelling units” to “five or more dwelling units,” and I’m not sure why. Isn’t a duplex or triplex also a “multi-family dwelling”? What are the potential repercussions of that change to associated policies? That’s on p. 528 of the redline draft.
There’s much more here, so like I said, please read through these first two documents for yourself, flag anything that interests or concerns you, and let’s try to get those concerns and clarifications addressed at this stage, if possible.
Read the rest at the Barber Brief.
The Barber Brief is an independent e-newsletter and blog written by Dr. Alicia Barber on the Substack platform. It is reposted by This Is Reno with her permission.
